DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendments were received on 11/14/2025. Claims 1-27 are pending where claims 1-27 were previously presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites the phrase “a second op…” in the last limitation where all other occurrences of the word ‘Op’ have the letter ‘o’ capitalized. Please conform all instances of ‘Op’ to a standard form to help ensure consistency and reduce any misinterpretations of the term on why one is capitalized and others are not. Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 112
The applicant amended the claims to address the 35 USC 112 rejections discussed in the previous Office Action. In view of the amendments, the respective 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasingarayanapeta et al [US 2022/0357854 A1] in view of Natanzon et al [US 10,061,666] and Lin et al [US 2016/0004718 A1].
With regard to claim 15, Narasingarayanapeta teaches a distributed storage system comprising: one or more processing resources; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium, coupled to the one or more processing resources, having stored therein instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources cause the one or more processing resources to: establish bi-directional synchronous replication between a primary copy of data of one or more members of a first consistency group (CG1) of a primary storage site and a secondary copy of data of one or more members of a second consistency group (CG2) of a secondary storage site
receive a primary-side operation (first Op) at the primary storage site from a client (see paragraph [0047]; the system can recite requests from a client);
send a message to a dependent graph manager (DGM)
execute the first Op for the inode of a file system of the primary storage site; replicate the first op to the secondary storage site; and execute the first op for the inode of a file system of the secondary storage site
Narasingarayanapeta does not appear to explicitly teach:
with each site having concurrent read/write access for serving inflight input/output (I/O) operations;
send a message to a dependent graph manager (DGM) to first acquire a local DGM lock for an inode for the first Op on the primary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same first inode are serialized, thus preventing data corruption;
acquire a DGM lock for a second inode of the secondary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same second inode are serialized, thus prevent data corruption;
and execute the first Op for the inode of a file system of the secondary storage site unless a conflict is detected with a second op that causes the first op to suspend on the secondary storage site.
Natanzon teaches with each site having concurrent read/write access for serving inflight input/output (I/O) operations (see col 14, lines 64-66; col 15, lines 17-29; col 13, lines 46-61; the system allows the various storage sites to be able to handle concurrent read/writes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the replication schemes of the respective storage sites of Narasingarayanapeta by allowing each site to be able to handle operations concurrently as taught by Natanzon in order to reduce latency by not having every operation wait for all preceding operations in the system to be processed.
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon do not appear to explicitly teach:
send a message to a dependent graph manager (DGM) to first acquire a local DGM lock for an inode for the first Op on the primary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same first inode are serialized, thus preventing data corruption;
acquire a DGM lock for a second inode of the secondary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same second inode are serialized, thus prevent data corruption;
and execute the first Op for the inode of a file system of the secondary storage site unless a conflict is detected with a second op that causes the first op to suspend on the secondary storage site.
Lin teaches send a message to a dependent graph manager (DGM) to first acquire a local DGM lock for an inode for the first Op (see paragraphs [0053], [0058], [0064], [0014]-[0015], [0137], and [0139]; the system can allow for range locks on files/objects in storage to be acquired and be able to perform those respective modifications while prevent/suspending any other operations from modifying any of the data in the acquired write range locks).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed storage system of Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon by utilizing lock controller with the ability of using range locks as taught by Lin in order to allow for greater throughput and processing of users’ requests by being able to allow fine-granularity file access and sharing that allows concurrent access to the file(s) while also ensuring that exclusive writes can occur on a smaller section of the file thus allowing other processes to still access or simultaneously edit other parts of the file without causing any conflicts.
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach send a message to a dependent graph manager (DGM) to first acquire a local DGM lock for an inode for the first Op on the primary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same first inode are serialized, thus preventing data corruption (see Narasingarayanapeta paragraph [0149]; Lin, paragraphs [0053], [0058], [0064], [0014]-[0015], [0137], and [0139]; the system can utilize a DGM and have means to allow for range locks on files/objects in storage to be acquired and be able to perform those respective modifications while prevent/suspending any other operations from modifying any of the data in the acquired write range locks);
acquire a DGM lock for a second inode of the secondary storage site to ensure that metadata and data on the same second inode are serialized, thus prevent data corruption; and execute the first Op for the inode of a file system of the secondary storage site unless a conflict is detected with a second Op that causes the first op to suspend on the secondary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0137], and [0139]; see Narasingarayanapeta, paragraphs [0149]-[0151]; the system can acquire range locks on the respective file at the storage site and when the replicated operations/data is sent to the secondary site).
With regard to claim 16, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing resources to: wake up the first op after a conflicting second op completes (see Lin, paragraph [0139]; the queued operations will wake up or be selected to be processed (retried) when the conflicting operations have completed).
With regard to claim 17, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing resources to: execute the first op on a file system of the secondary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0137], and [0139]; see Narasingarayanapeta, paragraphs [0149]-[0151]; the system can acquire range locks on the respective file at the storage site and when the replicated operations/data is sent to the secondary site).
With regard to claim 18, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing resources to: after execution, release the DGM lock on the inode of the secondary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0011] and [0142]; the system can release the lock after executing the operation).
With regard to claim 19, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing resources to: release the DGM lock on the inode on the primary storage site before responding to the client (see Lin, paragraphs [0011], [0139], and [0142]; see Narasingarayanapeta, paragraphs [0149]-[0151]; the system can acquire range locks on the respective file at the storage site and release them after completing the operation).
With regard to claim 20, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing resources to: suspend the first op on the primary storage site or on the secondary storage site if a conflicting operation is in progress (see Lin, paragraphs [0014] and [0139]; various operations can be suspended/queued if it conflicts with operations already in progress, i.e. already acquired the lock).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasingarayanapeta et al [US 2022/0357854 A1] in view of Natanzon et al [US 10,061,666], Lin et al [US 2016/0004718 A1], and Hallak et al [US 2021/0349643 A1].
With regard to claim 21, Narasingarayanapeta a computer-implemented method for a delegation process comprising: establishing bi-directional synchronous replication between one or more members of a first consistency group (CG1) of a primary storage site and one or more members of a second consistency group (CG2) of a secondary storage site
Narasingarayanapeta does not appear to explicitly teach:
with each storage site having concurrent read/write access for serving inflight input/output (I/O) operations;
initiating acquiring, with a primary sequencer of the primary storage site, delegation for a first write Op;
acquiring, with an overlap write manager (OWM), a range lock for the first write Op;
determining that a local delegation on the primary storage site is available for the first write Op when no conflicting Op operates on same range as the first write Op;
and writing the first write Op on the primary storage site, wherein the primary sequencer grants and revokes delegation to any range while a secondary sequencer of the secondary storage site requests delegation from the primary storage site, wherein the delegation to the range for the first write Op expire automatically once a replication relationship between the CG1 and CG2 is Out-of-Sync (OOS).
Natanzon teaches with each storage site having concurrent read/write access for serving inflight input/output (I/O) operations (see col 14, lines 64-66; col 15, lines 17-29; col 13, lines 46-61; the system allows the various storage sites to be able to handle concurrent read/writes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the replication schemes of the respective storage sites of Narasingarayanapeta by allowing each site to be able to handle operations concurrently as taught by Natanzon in order to reduce latency by not having every operation wait for all preceding operations in the system to be processed.
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon do not appear to explicitly teach:
initiating acquiring, with a primary sequencer of the primary storage site, delegation for a first write Op;
acquiring, with an overlap write manager (OWM), a range lock for the first write Op;
determining that a local delegation on the primary storage site is available for the first write Op when no conflicting Op operates on same range as the first write Op;
and writing the first write Op on the primary storage site, wherein the primary sequencer grants and revokes delegation to any range for the primary storage site and the secondary storage site while a secondary sequencer of the secondary storage site requests delegation from the primary storage site, wherein the delegation to the range for the first write Op expire automatically once a replication relationship between the CG1 and CG2 is Out-of-Sync (OOS).
Lin teaches initiating acquiring, with a primary sequencer of the primary storage site, delegation for a first write Op (see paragraphs [0081] and [0099]-[0100] and [0138] and [0141]; a particular storage site can receive permission/delegation/authorization to be a lessor or lessee and can then respond to various operations);
acquiring, with an overlap write manager (OWM), a range lock for the first write Op (see paragraph [0103] and [0107] and [0138]; after being granted ownership the system can request the and receive/acquire a range lock);
determining that a local delegation on the primary storage site is available for the first write Op when no conflicting Op operates on same range as the first write Op (see paragraphs [0138]-[0139] and [0099]; the system can determine if a delegation/authorization for a storage site/cloud controller is available when there is no conflicting locks for the same requested range);
and writing the first write Op on the primary storage site (see paragraph [0081]; the system can write the operation at the appropriate storage site).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed storage system of Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon by utilizing lock controller with the ability of delegation and using range locks as taught by Lin in order to allow for greater throughput and processing of users’ requests by being able to allow fine-granularity file access and sharing that allows concurrent access to the file(s) while also ensuring that exclusive writes can occur on a smaller section of the file thus allowing other processes to still access or simultaneously edit other parts of the file without causing any conflicts while also reducing network congestion and latency issues by authorizing cloud controllers/storage sites to be able to respond to other requests that falls within their granted/authorized range lock independently without contacting any other storage site/cloud controller.
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teaches wherein the primary sequencer grants and revokes delegation to any range or the primary storage site and the secondary storage site while a secondary sequencer of the secondary storage site requests delegation from the primary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0095]-[0097] and [0110] and paragraph between paragraphs [0091]-[0092]; see Narasingarayanapeta, paragraph [0047]; the system has means to revoke/break locks based on receiving other requests).
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin teach Out-of-Sync state (see paragraphs [0081]-[0082] and [0086]; the system can detect when OOS occurs including based on a network failure) but do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the delegation to the range for the first write Op expire automatically once a replication relationship between the CG1 and CG2 is Out-of-Sync (OOS).
Hallak teaches wherein the delegation
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the locking scheme of the distributed storage system of Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin by being able to revoke locks for out-of-sync storage sites as taught by Hallak in order to provide a node/site failure handling mechanism that can revoke the respective lock and associated delegation from a failed node/site including from network failure so that other clients/requests are able to acquire that lock on the respective data to avoid delays for other clients that are waiting for a lock to be freed organically (i.e. time period ends).
Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon, Lin, and Hallak teach wherein the delegation to the range for the first write Op expire automatically once a replication relationship between the CG1 and CG2 is Out-of-Sync (OOS) (see Hallak, paragraphs [0023], [0050], and [0059]-[0060]; and Figure 3; see Lin, paragraph [0074]; the system can determine when a failure occurs, i.e. OOS, and be able to revoke locks/delegations).
With regard to claim 22, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon, Lin, and Hallak teach wherein the primary sequencer of the primary storage site and the secondary sequencer of the secondary storage site both store granted delegations and process Ops locally until a delegation is revoked by the primary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0137]-[0138], [0141], [0095], and [0110]; see Narasingarayanapeta, paragraph [0047]; the system has means to revoke/break locks based on receiving other requests where different storage sites can have respective delegations/authorizations for managing some range of data that can be processed locally).
With regard to claim 23, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon, Lin, and Hallak teach wherein the primary sequencer revokes a delegation when receiving a local request that is dependent on an existing granted delegation to the secondary storage site (see Lin, paragraphs [0141], [0095], [0110], and paragraph between paragraphs [0091]-[0092]; the primary cloud controller can revoke delegation to a secondary site based on received requests).
With regard to claim 24, Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon, Lin, and Hallak teach wherein delegations expire automatically once a bi-directional synchronous replication relationship between CG1 and CG2 is Out-of-Sync (OOS) (see Hallak, paragraphs [0023], [0050], and [0059]-[0060]; and Figure 3; see Lin, paragraph [0074]; the system can determine when a failure occurs, i.e. OOS, and be able to revoke locks/delegations).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Claims 11, 12, and 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites additional steps that add a level of detail the cited prior art references do not appear to teach or suggest. Although the reference discusses a dependent graph manager, the functionality appears to be different or at least described in a level of detail such it does not appear to teach the claimed DGM’s functionality
Claim 12 depends upon claim 11 and is allowable based on its dependency.
Claim 25 recites additional details regarding the order of operations and relationships between the different network components where the respective details for the limitations do not appear to be taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 26 and 27 depend upon claim 25 and are allowable over the cited prior art based on its dependency.
With regard to claims 1 and 8, these independent claims were amended to incorporate new limitations that describe particular steps of the particular process in the claims in a level of detail that do not appear to be taught by the prior art of record. A further search was conducted; however, no new references were found that, when combined, would appear to teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see the second paragraph on page 11 through the second whole paragraph on page 12) with respect to the 35 USC 112 claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to address the claim rejections; therefore, in view of the amendments, the respective 35 USC 112 rejections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (see the second to last paragraph on page 12 through the second whole paragraph on page 17) with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn. With regard to claims 1 and 8, these independent claims were amended to incorporate new limitations that describe particular steps of the particular process in the claims in a level of detail that do not appear to be taught by the prior art of record; accordingly, the respective dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 have their rejections withdrawn for similar reasons as their parent claims.
Applicant's arguments (see second to last paragraph on page 17 through the last paragraph on page 18) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the cited prior art references do not teach the amended limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As illustrated in the 35 USC 103 rejections, locks can be acquired which ensure that the respective data (or metadata) that is locked is not corrupted by other processes attempting to write/modify/alter the same data that the entity with the acquired lock is writing/modifying. Thus, as can be seen, the cited prior art references teach, or fairly suggest the claim limitations as recited.
Applicant's arguments (see the first whole paragraph on page 17 through the last paragraph on page 21) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23 under Narasingarayanapeta in view of Natanzon and Lin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hallak. The applicant amended the claims to incorporate new limitations that required further search and consideration of the prior art which resulted in a new reference being found which, when combined, teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann Lo can be reached on 5712729767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 1/29/2026